The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation if the passenger can prove they were a bona fide passenger, emphasizing the burden of proof can shift based on circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act of 1987’) against the Judgment and award dated 22.07.2021 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short ‘the Railway Tribunal’) in OA-II-154/2017, Bhagchand Vs. Union of India , whereby the original application filed by the respondent/ claimant was partly allowed and Rs.5,60,000/- has been awarded as a compensation in his favour along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till the actual date of depositing of the decreetal amount with the Additional Registrar.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the respondent/claimant- Bhagchand filed an original application before the Railway Tribunal mentioning therein that on 10.10.2008 he was to commence his journey ex. Phulera to Jaipur by Train No. 4312 for which he purchased a valid second class railway journey ticket. When he boarded in the general coach in the said train, the train suddenly started moving with a jerk, as a result thereof he lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the moving train. Due to the fall from the moving train, he suffered amputation of left arm above the elbow besides multiple injuries to other parts of the body. The claimant further mentioned that he shifted to Government Hospital, Phulera from where after rendering him first-aid service, he was referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. At SMS Hospital, Jaipur, he was operated upon and his left arm was amputated above the elbow. It was also stated that the SHO Government Railway Police, Phulera on receipt of information about this mishap, made an entry in Rapat Roznamcha Aam. The claimant further mentioned in his original application that the relevant railway journey ticket which he possessed at the material time, was lost during the course of incident and treatment. He was a bonafide purchaser of the said train at the time of occurrence of the incident. And claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3. After receipt of notice, the Railway Department filed written statement of denial. In the written statement the Railway Department stated that the present claim application has been filed by the claimant unnecessarily with an intention to get undue monetary benefits as he was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time as no ticket was recovered from him. It was also stated that in the written statement that the alleged incident is not covered under the definition of untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’). The claimant suffered injuries due to his own negligence and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Railway Tribunal framed four issues including the relief which are quoted as under:-

“1. Whether the applicant was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

2. Whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of Section 123 (c) (2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 and the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?

4. What relief?”

5. The Railway Tribunal after hearing Partly allowed the original appeal and passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, this civil misc. appeal.

6. Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ non-claimant submits that since the respondent/ claimant was trying to board in the train which was in movement and therefore the said incident would not be covered under the provisions of section 123(c) of the Act of 1989. He also submits that the respondent/ claimant at the time of the alleged accident was in the employment of the Railways and at the time of boarding in the tr